Yes, but that was year 2. He wasn't all that close year 1.RetiredAg said:
Agreed. I think Pudge is going to be very similar to Biggio in the year prior to him making it. What was it? Something like 3 votes?
iBrad said:
Biggio had five other seasons in which he hit 20+ HRs, including four in the Astrodome. Why are you ignoring those seasons?
If you omit the seasons cut short by injury and strikes, his home run totals from '93 to '06 look like this.
21, 22, 15, 22, 20, 16, 20, 15, 15, 24, 26, 21
But if you're still skeptical about the three years you're pointing out, Biggio also got rid of the high leg kick he'd used his entire career prior to that stretch. That change led to better contact and fewer strikeouts. But despite the slight increase in HRs, none of those seasons were in his top five for slugging percentage.
Is it possible that Biggio could have used PEDs during his career? Of course. It's possible for anyone that played in that era because they were so prevalent throughout all of baseball. I just don't think his numbers show much.
Say Chowdah said:iBrad said:
Biggio had five other seasons in which he hit 20+ HRs, including four in the Astrodome. Why are you ignoring those seasons?
If you omit the seasons cut short by injury and strikes, his home run totals from '93 to '06 look like this.
21, 22, 15, 22, 20, 16, 20, 15, 15, 24, 26, 21
But if you're still skeptical about the three years you're pointing out, Biggio also got rid of the high leg kick he'd used his entire career prior to that stretch. That change led to better contact and fewer strikeouts. But despite the slight increase in HRs, none of those seasons were in his top five for slugging percentage.
Is it possible that Biggio could have used PEDs during his career? Of course. It's possible for anyone that played in that era because they were so prevalent throughout all of baseball. I just don't think his numbers show much.
PED's did more than help HR's. It helped durability, overall conditioning levels, pain management, focus, eye hand coordination, reflexes etc. He likely did use PED's (I'd wager it is 75% or better). I KNOW that I would have used them regardless of whether I was a home run hitter or not. The cost of using them is the risk of public humiliation if you got caught, perhaps a suspension if you got pinched more than once. The cost if you didn't use them is potentially MILLIONS of dollars a year and the added risk that you will lose your starting position to someone else who is also weighing the options. Between those two, I juice every time!
PED's was a part of the game. It was institutionally sanctioned (albeit by claimed ignorance) as evidenced in the Mitchell Investigation. The league (comprised by owners who value profits - it is their job to value profits) and higher scoring games means more viewers, means more seats sold, meaning more tv contracts, meaning more ad dollars, meaning more profits, meaning higher salaries etc etc etc.
Regarding the Mitchell Report: George Mitchell and his team could only get what they could find and NOBODY was talking to them. Yet, they still found 1000's of pages of documents. The players were certainly aware of it, and, did nothing. They were all in on it (players, management, ownership, league officials, union etc). It wouldn't even surprise me to learn that even the TV execs knew, sportswriters knew (or at least suspected) and the key sponsors knew it. It was the MLB's Quiz Show Scandal. Everyone was making piles of money so they all looked the other way.
Let all the players in.
Used meaning used. I've not put a lot of time thinking about qualifying it based on volumes, types and expected benefits.iBrad said:
What's your definition of used? Tried them? Used them once or twice to recover from an injury faster? Used them routinely over a career? I think the number that took them at least once would shock most fans. Probably not as high as all the players popping greenies back in the day, but still up there.
And I don't know why it's the hitters that are always targeted in the witch hunts. There were likely just as many pitchers doing them. I think the playing field was more level than most want to believe. It's never been fair to just target the hitters.
Careful with this! aggie1906 will start to post gifs and memes at you!Quote:
Yeah, I don't see how anyone can say that any player from that era is above suspicion. Biggio, Pudge, Griffey, etc. Doesn't matter.
bufrilla said:
Pudge was good, but better than Berra, Fisk, Cochrane, Carter, or Campanella? Those all hold records for catchers. In same class, I would not rate one over the other.
Pudge is a top-3 catcher all-time. The top-3 are Bench, Berra, Pudge. The order that they fall in is debatable. IMO, there's a significant gap between those 3 and the rest. Pudge is arguably the greatest defensive catcher to ever play the game.bufrilla said:
Pudge was good, but better than Berra, Fisk, Cochrane, Carter, or Campanella? Those all hold records for catchers. In same class, I would not rate one over the other.
My guess is that he is considering Pudge & Bagwell as roiders and that is why he left them off the ballot.aggie1906 said:
What a strange ballot for Gordon Wittenmyer.
Vlad
Mussina
Edgar
Raines
Schilling
Individually I have no issue with voting for any of the above (not saying I would), but when those 5 are your only votes and you leave off Pudge & Bagwell, the two most deserving "non roiders", then you lose me.
Probably true, but once again that reasoning exposes the absurdity of how voters are handling the PED era. As far as I'm aware, neither Pudge or Bagwell ever failed a test. Neither were in any official report on the subject. Pudge was only implicated in Canseco's book and perhaps by his "God only knows" comment. Bagwell admitted to using andro, but that was not a banned substance at the time.rosco511 said:My guess is that he is considering Pudge & Bagwell as roiders and that is why he left them off the ballot.aggie1906 said:
What a strange ballot for Gordon Wittenmyer.
Vlad
Mussina
Edgar
Raines
Schilling
Individually I have no issue with voting for any of the above (not saying I would), but when those 5 are your only votes and you leave off Pudge & Bagwell, the two most deserving "non roiders", then you lose me.
Pretty damning article.RetiredAg said:
Good article on closers
Agreed. That's why it's been so hard for me to make a judgement on guys like Hoffman and Wagner. I agree that if you vote for one, you should vote for both (although I'd go w/ Wagner before Hoffman if I had to pick one). But I personally wouldn't vote for either. It's just that eye test that you alluded to.aggie1906 said:
I think Riveria is in even if you hate closers. He was just so damn good. If you wanted to draw the line there, I could see that. Set the bar sky high and leave it. You know a HOF closer when you see one.
But I don't think that happens. Hoffman is slowly trending up. I think he'll get in eventually. However IMO if you vote in Hoffman then you need to vote in Wagner. Hoffman racked up a ton of saves, but ultimately I think Wagner was better. He had a better ERA, WHIP, Ks, and a similar WAR in fewer years played.
Personally I think I draw the line here. To me Smith (& Franco) are only hall of very good. In fact Franco has been off the ballot for some time now.
We'll have more closers with potential HOF resumes in the next 5-10 years in Rodriguez, Nathan, Papelbon, & Street.
A four player induction would go a long way to clearing up the ballot. If those 4 make it, next year's ballot gets a little less crowded.RetiredAg said:
Hoffman looking less and less likely. Vlad continuing to have a very strong showing. Will be interesting to see how he fares on the anonymous ballots. Would love a Bagwell/Raines/Pudge/Vlad class.
